TAG Meeting #6: Analysis of Parking Capacity Relief, CLRP Aspirations Land Use & Rail Enhancement Strategies

March 3rd, 2011


In January 2011 we continued to provide the TAG with model results of several strategies designed to provide more access to transit.  The model results of these strategies highlight the myriad methods that can be employed to meet future transit demand in the Washington metropolitan area.  During this presentation we also presented the proposed RTSP public engagement strategy; a revised project schedule and solicited jurisdictional representatives for additional strategies they would like to see modeled.

TAG Meeting #6 Presentation (PDF)

Related Posts:

  1. March 4th, 2011 at 12:14 | #1

    I noted the two strategies listed in a presentation on PlanItMetro for dealing with parking lot overcapacity issues.

    One strategy was dubbed “shadow pricing” where oversubscribed lots would have an additional fee associated with their use. The other strategy was to operate park and ride lots and shuttle buses.

    I think it’s interesting that these two strategies would be analyzed and discussed as if they were equivalent (the analysis noted a big decrease in ridership for one, and a big increase for the other) but I’m not sure the analysis was fair because in one case (shadow pricing) the system would obtain a lot more revenue that could be used to do other things like keep fares lower, reduce prices at other parking lots or provide additional bus service, and in the other case (shuttle buses) the system would be expected to spend a lot more in operating and even capital costs.

    Did the analysis take into account these factors?

  2. Tomika
    March 4th, 2011 at 16:36 | #2

    Hi Michael,

    You make a good point that, other than both of them resulting in right-sizing the supply of and demand for parking, pricing (decreasing demand) and operating shuttles from additional parking (increasing supply) have little or nothing in common. It was not intended to model a strategy of pricing (hence, the term shadow pricing) but it is revealing that operating shuttles from remote parking could attract some additional patronage, but would not dampen very much the demand for parking at Metrorail stations unless parking cost were increased significantly.

    At this stage of the RTSP Study, we have not begun to analyze the pros and cons of each of the individual strategies. However, all of the points you make must be considered when evaluating which strategies will be the most efficient and cost-effective for moving the region’s residents, visitors and employees. The strategy model results provide data on the number of linked transit trips and transit boardings for 2040. Working with the TAG and the public, we will determine which individual strategies should be combined into scenarios that we will model and then analyze in further detail.

    Thank you for your comments.

    RTSP Team

  3. J. Otavio Thompson
    March 25th, 2011 at 19:37 | #3

    I found your Brown Line intriguing in the TAG Meeting 6 presentation. There is currently greater demand for transit than available capacity in Adams Morgan, the medical center comprising Washington Hospital Center, Children’s Hospital and Washington DC VA Medical Center, and Walter Reed which the city shall redevelop in this decade. These destinations should be integrated into the rapid rail network. With that said, here are my ideas:

    A rapid rail (dedicated right-of-way) crosstown route would be helpful to the north of the downtown service area. I have been looking at the benefits of this particular crosstown route that would like both sides of the red line with the green line in the middle: Woodley Park or Dupont Circle (west terminus) – Adams Morgan – Columbia Heights – Georgia Ave/Irving St – DC Medical Center – Brookland (east terminus).

    And, to build off of your Brown Line route into Silver Spring, I have also been looking at the benefits of this dedicated right-of-way rapid rail line: Silver Spring (north terminus) – Walter Reed – Brightwood – Georgia Avenue/Petworth Metro – Irving St – Howard U. – Shaw Metro. A direct connection to both these lines would be in the vicinity of the Georgia Avenue/Irving St. stop.

    Any chance these scenarios could be investigated?

  4. March 26th, 2011 at 10:27 | #4

    I’m not sure of the value of investigating additional lines at this time: whether the Brown Line or the possible Beltway Lines (though if you do look at Beltway Lines across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge to Eisenhower Ave., I’d point out that extending them to Franconia-Springfield using the leads into the Alexandria yard comes almost free). As was pointed out in the earlier TAG meetings, there’s a capacity problem from the south into the core as well as a core capacity problem. The various flavours of Separated Blue and Separated Yellow address both. Brown only addresses one and the Beltway Lines don’t address either.

    I suggest that you look at combinations of the Separated and Split Yellow Lines with some interlinings: the Rosslyn and Pentagon wyes with both and the 10th St. Yellow with and without the L’Enfant Plaza wye. Naively, one would assume that existing Orange and Blue, together with Route 722 to Stadium-Armory, Dulles to Thomas Circle and Huntingdon/Franconia-Springfield to Thomas Circle could collectively saturate the Potomac crossings and fully use the new 10th St. tunnel.

    (By the way, I’m not the anti-union “jim” who commented on the business case post.)

Comments are closed.